-
Here’s a rundown of some favorite hosts and what I think were there best qualities in no particular order:
Bob Barker, Regis Philbin, Peter Marshall: Ability to get behind the wheel and completely steer a show from start to finish with an urbane style (esp. Peter on the later)
Dick Clark: Ability to create a causal atmosphere among contestants and guests on what could be a stressful game. Also an ability to give 100% to whatever show he was hosting no matter how late in a taping day it may have been getting.
Bill Cullen, Pat Sajak: Ability to make hosting a show seem completely effortless. Offbeat sense of humor displayed on occasion.
Chuck Woolery: Likable, regular guy personality.
Richard Karn: Likable, regular guy personality.
Tom Bergeron: Likable, funny guy personality.
Richard Dawson: Ability to get behind a wheel and completely steer a show from start to finish. Propensity to be alternately witty, charming or edgy at any moments makes show unpredictable to watch.
Monty Hall: Ability to get behind the wheel and completely steer a show from start to finish
Ray Combs: Ability to give 100% to each show no matter how late in a taping day it may have been getting.
Alex Trebek, Allen Ludden: Serious personalities matches format of their signature shows.
Gene Rayburn: Irreverent personality matches format of his signature show.
-
Chuck Woolery: Likable, regular guy personality.
What I liked about Chuck were his reactions. He'd get a suggestive clue on "Scrabble", or hear about a juicy date on "Love Connection", and he'd usually say what the rest of us were thinking. I also saw an interview with him one time where he said something like "when I make mistakes, I want them to stay in the tape". I like that...sometimes it's good to see people in that position screw up once in a while...it makes us all human.
-
Bob Eubanks had a similar style of expressing what everyone else might be thinking. Shows like Card Sharks and Newlywed Game allowed him ample time to do that while not interfering with the game. Bob also likes being a bit of an instigator. In an interview, he said that he likes to probe the newlyweds and said he thought it might be funny if either the husband or the wife got so angry at him, they'd leave the show!
Art James would fit in the "serious" personality category. He could carry a game without worrying about being funny or doing something outrageous to keep a game interesting. He would've been a good alternate choice for Jeopardy! (Art himself said he thought he could do J! better than Trebek!)
Chuck Barris would be sort of in the same category with Gene Rayburn, in terms of style. He was irreverent, and would do nearly anything for a laugh, Chuck also pushed the envelope of good taste, even further than Gene ever dared to.
Todd Newton, I think, would fit in the same category as Bill Cullen. Likeable, very fast wit, and yet has complete control of the game. Also, pretty much what you see on TV is what you saw off camera.
-
I enjoy watching a show where the host seems to be having just as much fun as the contestants. Many hosts are good at this, but I think Woolery, Cullen, Eubanks and a few others are experts.
This thread seems as good as any to raise this topic: Does Barker seem like he's getting more abrupt with contestants by the day?
Curt
-
[quote name=\'whewfan\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 10:11 AM\']Todd Newton, I think, would fit in the same category as Bill Cullen. Likeable, very fast wit, and yet has complete control of the game. Also, pretty much what you see on TV is what you saw off camera.
[snapback]66449[/snapback]
[/quote]
Replace "Likeable", "Fast Wit" and "Control" with "Annoying", "Hyper", and "Cheesy", and you may have something.
-
I think one of the hosts who is quite underrated by game show fans is Garry Moore, maybe because of 20 years of hosting panels. Always in control yet relaxed, not afraid to keep folks in line but also had time to dress up like Buster Keaton or have Johnny Carson shoot an apple off his head with a bow and arrow. Spent his entire game show hosting career in panel shows, but he did occassional guest spots on Bill's Pyramid and Marshall HSq. I think Larry Blyden had a lot of the same qualities; wouldn't it be cool if AMC or somebody could find those "Movie Game" eps. I'm almost positive Colgate-Palmolive would still have them.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 09:20 AM\']Replace "Likeable", "Fast Wit" and "Control" with "Annoying", "Hyper", and "Cheesy", and you may have something.
[snapback]66453[/snapback]
[/quote]
Your opinion. Newton, like most hosts, is just fine (and in fact pretty good) in the right format. I thought he was just fine on Hollywood Showdown. (Mind, I thought Showdown itself was a pretty weak format, but he was one of the bright spots.)
Would I put him on To Tell The Truth? Gawd, no. But I'm warming to the idea of him as successor to Barker.
The problem with him on Whammy is that the PYL concept has SUCH a cult following, nobody short of Tomarken was really gonna fit the bill there.
-
[quote name=\'curtking\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 10:58 AM\']Does Barker seem like he's getting more abrupt with contestants by the day?
[snapback]66452[/snapback]
[/quote]
Part of the reason, I believe, for that is he doesn't have nearly the interaction time he had with the players back in the day. With all the commercial clutter, we're nearing the point where "getting to know ya" will be trimmed to the bone to get all six games in.
-
Just to throw in another tendency...
The ability to "play along" with the game and not just run it. Allen Ludden on Password, Clark on Pyramid (esp. the winner's circle), even John Charles Daly (trying to mislead the panel) Peter Marshall (I don't know, I would have gone to Charley Weaver, but this might work out). It makes the host seem less of a "host" and more of a participant.
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 12:10 PM\']The problem with him on Whammy is that the PYL concept has SUCH a cult following, nobody short of Tomarken was really gonna fit the bill there.
[snapback]66461[/snapback]
[/quote]
And I don't think even he could have saved it.
-
[quote name=\'cmjb13\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 01:43 PM\'][quote name=\'clemon79\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 12:10 PM\']The problem with him on Whammy is that the PYL concept has SUCH a cult following, nobody short of Tomarken was really gonna fit the bill there.
[snapback]66461[/snapback]
[/quote]
And I don't think even he could have saved it.
[snapback]66492[/snapback]
[/quote]
One essential skill an emcee must have is making a formulaic half-hour or hour not seem so formulaic. Getting life out of the contestants is one way to do it. While Newton was pretty good at that on "Hollywood Whatever," and Tomarken was good on the original PYL, on "Whammy!" Todd was holding on for dear life. His tone and the contestants' never changed from loud and artificially enthusiastic.
I think Mark Wahlberg was underrated on Russian Roulette. His give-and-take with the contestants--and as a result, theirs with each other--was what made the show watchable.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 02:03 PM\']I think Mark Wahlberg was underrated on Russian Roulette. His give-and-take with the contestants--and as a result, theirs with each other--was what made the show watchable.
[snapback]66512[/snapback]
[/quote]
I'll buy that. This is what made Pat Kiernan genius on "Studio 7", as well - he was excellent at snapping out of his role as Generic Quizmaster long enough to make a comment that reminded the viewers and players that, yes, he had a very good idea exactly how the game was playing out - and then getting right back to work.
-
I don't think it was as much Todd Newton's fault that Whammy bombed out as were other factors, though I do think there would be better hosts for the job (yes, Peter included, of course!).
I think because of the fact that the values for the big board were almost exactly the same as they were in the 80's, the show didn't offer enough money and prizes to have real drama and tension going on that would want make people want more. Plus, with OMG ridiculously simple questions, and the altered first round, I think it was bound to get kicked off soon after it got started. Plus, NO RETURNING CHAMPIONS!!!
If you want PYL to succeed today, you gotta get a respectable host, have returning champions, and more money being offered. For example, 10000+spin, 9000+spin, 8000+spin, for big bucks in round two... Don't you think that would be exciting to see someone land on "$10,000 AND A SPIN????!!!!!!" People could win like $40000 in one day on the show if they get even a short run on the high dollar squares! Don't forget add a one and double your money either, which Whammy didn't have too! Plus, have a decent car, not just a Suzuki!!!!!.... :(
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 09:35 PM\']I don't think it was as much Todd Newton's fault that Whammy bombed out as were other factors, though I do think there would be better hosts for the job (yes, Peter included, of course!).
I think because of the fact that the values for the big board were almost exactly the same as they were in the 80's, the show didn't offer enough money and prizes to have real drama and tension going on that would want make people want more.
[snapback]66541[/snapback]
[/quote]
Whammy! was a cable game show, hence the cash and prizes being no higher than they were in 1984 on CBS. Cable game shows don't have the budgets network or syndicated shows usually had/have. The less-than-stellar prize budget meant there were 11 or 12 whammies on the board rather than nine in the 80s PYL, and more merchandise prize squares on the board and fewer cash squares.
-
[quote name=\'zachhoran\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 09:44 PM\']
Whammy! was a cable game show, hence the cash and prizes being no higher than they were in 1984 on CBS. Cable game shows don't have the budgets network or syndicated shows usually had/have. The less-than-stellar prize budget meant there were 11 or 12 whammies on the board rather than nine in the 80s PYL, and more merchandise prize squares on the board and fewer cash squares.
[snapback]66543[/snapback]
[/quote]
I love calling bullcrap on Zach.
Zach, the fact that Whammy was on cable didn't have a damn thing to do with why the values were no higher than the 80s version. There are PLENTY of cable shows that have cash budgets that were higher than network or syndie offerings...
(and no, i'm not asking you for a list either.)
Yes, there were more prizes...I'M GUESSING that was because of Fremantles desire to keep costs down by having free or lowcost products aired, in exchange for plugs/placement...
In their quest to do so , however, they lost the essence of the game...which was , TO ME, the added spins that allowed a game to go back and forth between 2 players constantly.
Lets get Mandel in this conversation. Until then, quit acting like the gawddamn know-it-all that ONLY you think you are.
-
Replace "Likeable", "Fast Wit" and "Control" with "Annoying", "Hyper", and "Cheesy", and you may have something.
Don't forget "smarmy".
-
I don't think it was as much Todd Newton's fault that Whammy bombed out as were other factors
Like the premise of the game was as thin as a single-ply Kleenex tissue?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 10:32 PM\']
I don't think it was as much Todd Newton's fault that Whammy bombed out as were other factors
Like the premise of the game was as thin as a single-ply Kleenex tissue?
[snapback]66552[/snapback]
[/quote]
Whammy! made me realize how well executed PYL was. Right host, pacing and contestants. Whammy! was so overly structured..... For instance, why would you put a commercial break in the middle of the final round? That, IMO, is like putting a commercial break in the middle of the Winner's Circle. I don't think much could've helped it.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 08:27 PM\']
Replace "Likeable", "Fast Wit" and "Control" with "Annoying", "Hyper", and "Cheesy", and you may have something.
Don't forget "smarmy".
[snapback]66551[/snapback]
[/quote]
I find it absolutely hilarious that you guys should think to apply the same derogatory adjectives to Todd Newton that detractors of game shows have applying for years to the greats of our business. Besides, Newton is still a relatively new emcee. I personally think that he IS likeable, quick-witted and capable of keeping control of his show. Based on reports, I would also say that he is like Ray Combs in that he is able to keep the same energy level through out his show and the taping of that show. But he's also still fairly raw, and as a result, without the experience to help him know how to react in certain situations (Mark, Chris and most of Newton's detractors seem to want to say "all situations"), right now to many people he comes off exactly as you suggest. But I think the capacity (and the desire) are there to help him learn. Frankly, I'd rather have someone like Todd hosting shows than, say, Louie Anderson. ;P
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 08:32 PM\']I don't think it was as much Todd Newton's fault that Whammy bombed out as were other factors
Like the premise of the game was as thin as a single-ply Kleenex tissue?
[snapback]66552[/snapback]
[/quote]
That's never stopped the PYL format before. Certainly Fremantle's desire to have wall-to-wall game hurt the show. They were so obsessed with keeping the audience focused on the game that they forgot to give the audience a stake in the game by making us care about the contestants on the show. And I think we're all agreed that the show was TOO DAMN CHEAP.
And then there's Sony's dumb decision to turn Game Show Network into GSN...
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 09:35 PM\']IDon't you think that would be exciting to see someone land on "$10,000 AND A SPIN????!!!!!!" [/quote]
Trying launching The $250,000 Diamond Head Game and tell me how far you get.
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 8 2004, 07:35 PM\']!!!
????!!!!!!
!!!!!
[snapback]66541[/snapback]
[/quote]
Dude, you might be taken a little more seriously if you backed off on the punctuation a little bit.
-
[quote name=\'Game Show Man\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 02:00 AM\'] Certainly Fremantle's desire to have wall-to-wall game hurt the show. They were so obsessed with keeping the audience focused on the game that they forgot to give the audience a stake in the game by making us care about the contestants on the show.
And then there's Sony's dumb decision to turn Game Show Network into GSN...
[snapback]66566[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think what finally pushed me over the edge for the show was when I heard a contestant announce "I want to win big bucks so I can have liposuction! WHOO!"
Liposuction. Think about it.
BTW, it wasn't Sony's decision, it was Cronin's.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 05:21 AM\'][quote name=\'Game Show Man\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 02:00 AM\'] Certainly Fremantle's desire to have wall-to-wall game hurt the show. They were so obsessed with keeping the audience focused on the game that they forgot to give the audience a stake in the game by making us care about the contestants on the show.
And then there's Sony's dumb decision to turn Game Show Network into GSN...
[snapback]66566[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think what finally pushed me over the edge for the show was when I heard a contestant announce "I want to win big bucks so I can have liposuction! WHOO!"
Liposuction. Think about it.
BTW, it wasn't Sony's decision, it was Cronin's.
Tyshaun
[snapback]66577[/snapback]
[/quote]
Cronin's at Sony's behest. They are the one who want the younger demos.
-
(wheelloon @ Dec 8 2004, 07:35 PM)
!!!
????!!!!!!
!!!!!
Dude, you might be taken a little more seriously if you backed off on the punctuation a little bit.
I do that for emphasis, nothing else.... I've always done that... but anyway...
(chris319 @ Dec 8 2004, 08:32 PM)
I don't think it was as much Todd Newton's fault that Whammy bombed out as were other factors
Like the premise of the game was as thin as a single-ply Kleenex tissue?
That's never stopped the PYL format before. Certainly Fremantle's desire to have wall-to-wall game hurt the show. They were so obsessed with keeping the audience focused on the game that they forgot to give the audience a stake in the game by making us care about the contestants on the show. And I think we're all agreed that the show was TOO DAMN CHEAP.
And then there's Sony's dumb decision to turn Game Show Network into GSN...
AMEN!!!!! The new format (and yes that mid-final round commercial break seemed very weird...) screwed up one of the best concepts for a game show of them all... BOOHOO... Oh well, if we expect PYL to succeed again, it has to be on a major network (not including FOX) and have more at stake per round... Bottom Line...
-
...one of the best concepts for a game show of them all...
Hit a buzzer at random points. What a concept. (And I'm a FAN of the show)
Oh well, if we expect PYL to succeed again, it has to be on a major network (not including FOX)
It has the same odds of being picked up by FOX as it does by CBS/ABC/NBC these days. None. They've pretty much made clear based on 11 years without one single new premiere that they're out of the GS business except TPiR, for good. And the WWTBAM ratings crash, LMAD's mediocre ratings, etc. have convinced networks to basically stay away from games in primetime.
and have more at stake per round... Bottom Line...
Why? PYL/Whammy payoffs ran about $10,000-$20,000 per show, sometimes less, sometimes more. I think that's a downright perfect amount myself. WHY do people seem to think that a good game requires paying out a quarter-mil per show?
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 01:47 PM\']Oh well, if we expect PYL to succeed again, it has to be on a major network (not including FOX) and have more at stake per round... Bottom Line...
[/quote]
Once again, try launching "The $500,000 What's My Prize", and tell me how far you get.
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 11:47 AM\']I do that for emphasis, nothing else.... I've always done that... but anyway...
[/quote]
You should stop. It makes you look inane. But, take the advice or not, your choice.
-
If Todd Newton were that good, people wouldn't be divided in their opinions of him. There would be more of a consensus among game show fans. Can you think of a game show fan who would describe, say, Garry Moore as "cheesy" or "smarmy"?
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 03:56 PM\']Can you think of a game show fan who would describe, say, Garry Moore as "cheesy" or "smarmy"?
[snapback]66645[/snapback]
[/quote]
A traditional game show fan, no. If there were a game show Mt. Rushmore, Garry would be on it (and do I smell another thread coming from that?)*
Somebody with a different point of view, maybe. Garry's style was very much of his time, and lest we forget, that time ended almost 30 years ago. For good or bad, tastes change. Some of those old 1950s and 60s variety shows are almost cringe-inducing - take the musical numbers on "Laugh-In."
(Personally, I through Todd Newton did OK on Whammy! but the contestants were generally so-so and the construction of the game - especially that interrupted final round - was crummy. Maybe you can't catch lightning twice. Todd wouldn't work for every show but yes, I could see him on TPIR or some other show with lots of host-contestant interaction.)
*OK, since you asked....Game show Mt. Rushmore, from left, Cullen, Barker, Moore, Kennedy.
-
[quote name=\'Seth Thrasher\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 02:29 PM\']
and have more at stake per round... Bottom Line...
Why? PYL/Whammy payoffs ran about $10,000-$20,000 per show, sometimes less, sometimes more. I think that's a downright perfect amount myself. WHY do people seem to think that a good game requires paying out a quarter-mil per show?
[snapback]66623[/snapback]
[/quote]
As others have noted, there's not much to the game here. PYL's sole point of interest is the drama and excitement. To that end, the prizes do have to seem worthwhile. A transistor radio or box of M&M's isn't much of a prize when one sees bigger one on TPIR and Wheel. And I'm not suggesting that we should take up a collection for Sony and Fremantle, just analyzing why it didn't work.
PYL, I would add, does have more interesting concept than "Let's Make a Deal." Just sayin'.
-
[quote name=\'Game Show Man\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 02:00 AM\']I find it absolutely hilarious that you guys should think to apply the same derogatory adjectives to Todd Newton that detractors of game shows have applying for years to the greats of our business. Besides, Newton is still a relatively new emcee. [/quote]
The fact that he's new is beside the point. Had he not dumped a 4 lb. bag of C&H down his trachea before every taping; he would have been fine.
-
[quote name=\'Neumms\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 06:01 PM\']As others have noted, there's not much to the game here. PYL's sole point of interest is the drama and excitement.
[snapback]66658[/snapback]
[/quote]
And a lot of the drama and excitement stem from the possibility that one player will make a dramatic comeback with a string of extra spins. When there's a big gap between the lead and the next player, and there are lots of Whammys but only a few extra spin spaces, it makes a lot more sense to pass your spins. The mix on PYL made it a tougher decision.
-
The producers of LMAD did a heck of a lot to make their show fresh every day, and to expand beyond mere "the box or the curtain?" problems. Second Chance/Press Your Luck/Whammy! was the same damn thing every day.
-
Yes, I realize the chance of it being picked up again is next to zilch... but it doesn't hurt to fantasize, does it?
I don't mean for PYL to become a quarter-million dollar game show. My point was that inflation has been huge since 1986! It would be nice to see the values upped even just a little bit...
But, realistically, for a network game show to attract a large audience, I hate to say it, but it has to have a pretty big payout... TV viewers like big, big, big, big bucks on game shows, which is part of the reason I believe that Millionaire was such an instant hit.
Yes, i know the entire show was basically just about hitting a plunger at the best possible time... but at the same time, look at the huge cult following behind the show! BTW, at least I think so in my opinion, don't the game shows with the most basic concepts often do the best popularity-wise? i.e. WOF, J!, CC, MG, FF, TPIR, TTTT... It doesn't get more basic then just smacking a plunger, or if it does, how?
-
One of the things that works in the 80's PYL's favor for me is that I can never remember if I have seen a particular episode before, though I probably have. It's like a new show every time.
-
The contestants on Press Your Luck, with a few exceptions, acted like normal human beings. On Whammy!, with few exceptions, the players all acted like characters.
-
The producers of LMAD did a heck of a lot to make their show fresh every day, and to expand beyond mere "the box or the curtain?" problems. Second Chance/Press Your Luck/Whammy! was the same damn thing every day.
I understand your point, but I have to disagree with it. What made "PYL" such an enjoyable ride is that no two shows were exactly the same. You never knew when someone would hit a whammy on the last spin and lose the game. Or, hit $5000 + One Spin and make a big comeback. Or, win $100,000 in a two-part episode. Or, get in a "spin battle" and have the dollars rack up over several minutes. Even Peter Tomarken said on occasion that he was amazed at some of the things that happened.
You could think of it like a game of chess - maybe the first two or three moves are always the same, but after that it's different every single time - and unpredicatable.
-
I understand your point, but I have to disagree with it. What made "PYL" such an enjoyable ride is that no two shows were exactly the same. You never knew when someone would hit a whammy on the last spin and lose the game. Or, hit $5000 + One Spin and make a big comeback. Or, win $100,000 in a two-part episode. Or, get in a "spin battle" and have the dollars rack up over several minutes. Even Peter Tomarken said on occasion that he was amazed at some of the things that happened.
You could think of it like a game of chess - maybe the first two or three moves are always the same, but after that it's different every single time - and unpredicatable.
One of the things that works in the 80's PYL's favor for me is that I can never remember if I have seen a particular episode before, though I probably have. It's like a new show every time.
The contestants on Press Your Luck, with a few exceptions, acted like normal human beings. On Whammy!, with few exceptions, the players all acted like characters.
You all hit it like a nail on the head! ;)
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 9 2004, 11:29 PM\']I don't mean for PYL to become a quarter-million dollar game show. My point was that inflation has been huge since 1986! It would be nice to see the values upped even just a little bit...
[/quote]
Not really. Considering the minimum wage was at approxmently $3.13/hr, in regards to current purchasing power; inflation really isn't *that* bad; and certainly not in perspective to a game show.
-
Well, minimum wage has at least doubled since then... minimum wage in MD is 6.50, so I was just thinking that a little increase wouldn't hurt...
Plus, look at the rise of the Dow Jones since 1986... in my opinion, that is huge!
But to get back to this topic... Tomarken had quite a sense of humor that really helped to get people to watch PYL. His humor could be dry sometimes, sometimes corny, sometimes a *tiny* bit racy... but it all was always funny.
I believe for any game show to succeed, the host has to have a sense of humor, and a GOOD sense of humor at that... take the example at the bottom of my post... that's why I think Pat has been such a hit now for over 20 years...
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 12:13 PM\']You all hit it like a nail on the head! ;)
[snapback]66722[/snapback]
[/quote]
Please don't overquote like that.
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 02:34 PM\']Well, minimum wage has at least doubled since then... minimum wage in MD is 6.50, so I was just thinking that a little increase wouldn't hurt...
[/quote]
Federal Minimum wage was $3.35/hr in 1986.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v110/ai_4742738 (http://\"http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_v110/ai_4742738\")
meaning that $6.70/hr would be doubled. We haven't reached that threshold yet.
-
[quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 02:46 PM\']Federal Minimum wage was $3.35/hr in 1986.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v110/ai_4742738 (http://\"http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_v110/ai_4742738\")
meaning that $6.70/hr would be doubled. We haven't reached that threshold yet.
[snapback]66759[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not to mention upon checking the department of labor's website, min. wage in Maryland is $5.15 as of 1/1/04, unless they've changed it since then...
-
Even Peter Tomarken said on occasion that he was amazed at some of the things that happened.
A valiant effort to pump interest into a game that's as interesting as watching other people spin a roulette wheel.
-
[quote name=\'chris319\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 05:34 PM\']A valiant effort to pump interest into a game that's as interesting as watching other people spin a roulette wheel.
[snapback]66777[/snapback]
[/quote]
But, come on, Chris, you have to admit that watching roulette can be exciting sometimes, as you watch someone barely miss or hit their target number, costing or winning some person thousands of dollars by the tick of a wheel. In essence, that's the best description of PYL I've heard, electronic roulette.
Nobody's saying that PYL was the greatest game created by man, and I personally don't think every episode of the show was particularly interesting, it's just a fun (IMO) way to spend 30 minutes, nothing more.
Tyshaun
-
[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 04:34 PM\']Nobody's saying that PYL was the greatest game created by man,
[snapback]66784[/snapback]
[/quote]
I think Chris's reaction stems from the fact that in the history of this forum and ATGS, we HAVE had quite a number of people claim EXACTLY that.
I'm rather a big fan of the show myself, but I will freely admit it's certainly not even close to the greatest mental competition ever devised.
-
[quote name=\'aaron sica\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 02:48 PM\'][quote name=\'Dsmith\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 02:46 PM\']Federal Minimum wage was $3.35/hr in 1986.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v110/ai_4742738 (http://\"http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_v110/ai_4742738\")
meaning that $6.70/hr would be doubled. We haven't reached that threshold yet.
[snapback]66759[/snapback]
[/quote]
Not to mention upon checking the department of labor's website, min. wage in Maryland is $5.15 as of 1/1/04, unless they've changed it since then...
[snapback]66760[/snapback]
[/quote]
No... they haven't.
-
$5.15? But the point is that as a whole, the economy and people's yearly pay have increased a decent amount since 1986, and $5000 can't buy you nearly as much today as it could in 1986.
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 08:57 PM\']BTW i don't if anyone else on this website lives in MD, but I do, and I am paid the minimum wage that supposedly the state has set right now... $6.50...
[snapback]66803[/snapback]
[/quote]
Did you not see bossjock77's reply on this thread? Look back a few...
-
Okay then... apparently my employer has misinformed me about MD minimum wage... I shall have to look more into that... but anyway...
What does everybody think made Wink Martindale so good? I never really thought too highly of him, I don't think he was a bad host, he just seemed kinda boring to me...
-
[quote name=\'wheelloon\' date=\'Dec 10 2004, 09:11 PM\']What does everybody think made Wink Martindale so good? I never really thought too highly of him, I don't think he was a bad host, he just seemed kinda boring to me...
[snapback]66806[/snapback]
[/quote]
And if you read before you assumed, you would know that quite a number of people here don't think much of Martindale. I personally think he's the most contrived and cornball (and yes, I know he tried to be cornball) host in game show history.
Tyshaun
-
Well i didn't just mean here, i mean on a lot of game show forums i've been on, people have said they really loved wink... and yeah, i have to agree that he really is kind of a cornball at times
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again--in my heart, Mr. Clementson is right in everything he says about "PYL," but I'm still drawn to the set whenever I put that show on, whether it's the original or the admittedly-inferior remake.
Perhaps Peter Tomarken's the anti-Christ. :)